US OPEN August 31 - September 13 2015 (SEE MOD NOTE POST #8)

cowboyBuilder

Rankings not out? Tomorrow ?


edit - out now .

whiterebel

Physically I think Fed's still got it, but something is radically wrong upstairs. He doesn't seem to know when Novak is struggling and to put the foot down and pull away. Look at the difference when Stan smelled blood at RG, he didn't give him a chance to get back into it. Compare that to Roger in the 3rd. 40-15 to go 5-4 and up serve for the set and he lost the set 6-4. When he started to play in the 2nd and 4th sets he was nearing something like his previous best form, free flowing back hands, thunderous forehands. Yet he stopped coming in to the net for a long time, even though he had a 70% success rate. Maybe the 2 superb lobs put him off, but if that is his gameplan he needs to stick to it, come hell or high water. The first set was appalling from him, and yet there was only a break between them in all 4 sets. His problem is, he can beat everyone else in the world at the moment bar Djoko, so why should he retire? One more GS like last year's US Open, and he could tie up number 18. The all out attack plan would probably work ok over 3 sets, but hard to sustain in the slams. It would be interesting to see how he fares against Nadal these days.

Fair play to ND for putting up with that sh*t from the American crowd. Do they know or care how unbelievably boorish they come across?

whiterebel

Tim Smith55 wrote: »

Peak Fed. Decide yourself if he is better than ever.

First one vs Nole shows 2 big differences for me. The depth of return for RF, and lack of depth for Djok. He just seemed to have much more confidence in all his shots.

You could see in the one vs Nadal that when he was confident the length of return, was close to the baseline, but when under pressure he was putting them on to the service lines, allowing RN to smash the ball away.

He doesn't look near as good to me now, as he did then. Whether its the new racquet, new style or more nervous as he gets older, I don't know.

walshb

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

It depends on the era of the court speeds.

Peak Fed comfortably beats peak Nole and Nadal on the older faster courts bar clay .
On an indoor court it wouldnt even be close.

On the modern slow courts,I still think peak Federer would be too good for them .

Apart from the first set and alot of break points I thought Federer actually played pretty well and was the better player.
He made a mess of his break point opportunities especially on the second serve.
1/11 break points won on a second serve is diabolical,should be at least winning half of them.

This is the issue with these debates. Saying things like Fed 'easily' beats peak Nole and Nadal on older hard courts. It's nonsense, with no evidence to back it up. Facts are that Nadal has clearly shown that he has Fed's number at any stage during their careers. Has beaten Fed on all surfaces, and beat him in the SW19 08 final, where Fed was on fire. It's subjective, and close. I happen to think that both Nole and Nadal at peak are too good for the best Fed. Very competitive, but a notch better in man against man.

walshb

Tim Smith55 wrote: »

Peak Fed. Decide yourself if he is better than ever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaawe4NbQHs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwJjNpoHJgg

That's a 20 year old Nole. Peak to peak it's much closer. Try to keep it somewhat consistent. I' back the 2011 Nole to beat that 2007 Fed.

cowboyBuilder

Good article from the BBC after Wimbledon

"The Bad guy that has done nothing wrong" (not titled this anymore)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/33501607

walshb

I have little issue with anyone picking peak Fed over peak Nole. But saying it would be clear is wrong.

How anyone could be clear cut that peak Fed beats peak Nadal is plain bonkers when you analyse their head to heads. Nadal has clearly demonstrated that he's better across the years and the surfaces. He has the edge in almost all areas/scenarios.

mickmackey1

Bit strange so that Nadal has 16 hard court titles and Federer 59!! The H2H is skewed by Nadal's clay court dominance, Federer is actually ahead on other surfaces despite the 5-year age gap, which is half a lifetime in tennis terms.

Although I'd have to say the 3 Djoko-Nadal GS finals from Wimby 11 to AO 12 were probably the highest standard of tennis ever seen.

walshb

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Bit strange so that Nadal has 16 hard court titles and Federer 59!! The H2H is skewed by Nadal's clay court dominance, Federer is actually ahead on other surfaces despite the 5-year age gap, which is half a lifetime in tennis terms.

Although I'd have to say the 3 Djoko-Nadal GS finals from Wimby 11 to AO 12 were probably the highest standard of tennis ever seen.

No, he is not ahead on all other surfaces. That's the point. Plus, this 5 year age gap? Means nothing. Nadal has been beating Fed since 2005, when Nadal was not near his own peak.

walshb

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Although I'd have to say the 3 Djoko-Nadal GS finals from Wimby 11 to AO 12 were probably the highest standard of tennis ever seen.

Spot on. I don't think any version of Fed beats them.

Tim Smith55

walshb wrote: »

I have little issue with anyone picking peak Fed over peak Nole. But saying it would be clear is wrong.

How anyone could be clear cut that peak Fed beats peak Nadal is plain bonkers when you analyse their head to heads. Nadal has clearly demonstrated that he's better across the years and the surfaces. He has the edge in almost all areas/scenarios.

The only surface Nadal has demonstrated that he is better on is clay. He has 1 Australian open compared to Federer's 4, he has 2 Wimbledon's compared to Federer's 7, he has 2 US Open's compared to Federer's 5 and he has zero WTFs compared to Federer's 6. So I'm not quite sure how you conclude that he is better across the years and the surfaces.

walshb

Tim Smith55 wrote: »

The only surface Nadal has demonstrated that he is better on is clay. He has 1 Australian open compared to Federer's 4, he has 2 Wimbledon's compared to Federer's 7, he has 2 US Open's compared to Federer's 5 and he has zero WTFs compared to Federer's 6. So I'm not quite sure how you conclude that he is better across the years and the surfaces.

Sorry, where did I say this was to do with titles and careers? I started this with pure man vs. man, peak to peak. For me peak Federer does not beat the best version of Nadal. It's probably 80/20 in Nadal's favour. Against Nole it's 55/45 in Nole's favour when peak vs. peak.

You would really back the best Fed against the best Nadal all things considered? Knowing that Nadal clearly has shown that he is that bit stronger?

Career wise Roger trumps them all. I am not debating against that.

Tim Smith55

walshb wrote: »

That's a 20 year old Nole. Peak to peak it's much closer. Try to keep it somewhat consistent. I' back the 2011 Nole to beat that 2007 Fed.

OK well 2011 Federer beat Peak Djokovic at the French open, should have beaten peak Djokovic at the 2011 US open was serving with two match points. 2012 Federer then beat close to peak Djokovic at Wimbledon in 2012.

Peak Federer in 2006 and early 2007 was significantly better than 2011-2012 Federer.

walshb

Tim Smith55 wrote: »

OK well 2011 Federer beat Peak Djokovic at the French open, should have beaten peak Djokovic at the 2011 US open was serving with two match points. 2012 Federer then beat close to peak Djokovic at Wimbledon in 2012.

Peak Federer in 2006 and early 2007 was significantly better than 2011-2012 Federer.

Conversely I can say that a clearly pre peak 2007 Nole beat a supposed 2007 peak Federer. That is just it. It's damn close. In a ten match series peak vs. peak I would slightly lean with Nole.

With Nadal it's 8 wins from 10. Too strong.

Peak Nole vs peak Nadal it's a toss up; might sneak it to Nadal.

Tim Smith55

walshb wrote: »

Sorry, where did I say this was to do with titles and careers? I started this with pure man vs. man, peak to peak. For me peak Federer does not beat the best version of Nadal. It's probably 80/20 in Nadal's favour. Against Nole it's 55/45 in Nole's favour when peak vs. peak.

You would really back the best Fed against the best Nadal all things considered? Knowing that Nadal clearly has shown that he is that bit stronger?

Career wise Roger trumps them all. I am not debating against that.

Im arguing that Rogers peak level is higher than the peak level of Djokovic and Nadal.

Against Nadal at peak level I think peak Federer wins on grass, fast hardcore, indoor hardcore and on carpet. On Clay obviously Nadal and on slow hardcore possibly Nadal.

Against Djokovic the only surface he possibly doesn't win on is slow hardcourt.

walshb

Tim Smith55 wrote: »

Peak Federer in 2006 and early 2007 was significantly better than 2011-2012 Federer.

I disagree here. He had not yet run into the best Nole. I believe Fed in 2011 beats 2006/2007 Fed. Better all rounder.

Tim Smith55

walshb wrote: »

I disagree here. He had not yet run into the best Nole. I believe Fed in 2011 beats 2006/2007 Fed. Better all rounder.

What aspect of Federer's game was better in 2011-2012?

His winning percentage in 2006 was 95%, in 2011 it was 84%.I think Nadal was possibly the only player he lost against in 2006.

In 2006 he reached the final in 16 out of the 17 tournaments he entered. In 2011 he reached the final in 6 out of 16.

walshb

Tim Smith55 wrote: »

Im arguing that Rogers peak level is higher than the peak level of Djokovic and Nadal.

Against Nadal at peak level I think peak Federer wins on grass, fast hardcore, indoor hardcore and on carpet. On Clay obviously Nadal and on slow hardcore possibly Nadal.

Against Djokovic the only surface he possibly doesn't win on is slow hardcourt.

Yet in 33 matches from 2005 only indoors and grass Fed leads, and barely leads on grass. All other courts and matches he is inferior. This whole 'fast court' scenario is just speculation.

walshb

Tim Smith55 wrote: »

What aspect of Federer's game was better in 2011-2012?

Tactics and shot decision and selection.

You are fixated on stats. Win percentage dropping from one year to the next does not necessarily mean you were a better tennis player in the higher percent year. It simply means your percentage was higher. And your success was higher.

mickmackey1

walshb wrote: »

I started this with pure man vs. man, peak to peak. For me peak Federer does not beat the best version of Nadal. It's probably 80/20 in Nadal's favour.

Clear exaggeration there and you know it. Anyway it's beginning to look like the efforts required to beat Federer have reduced Nadal to a pale shadow, while Fed continues merrily piling up the titles.

walshb

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Clear exaggeration there and you know it. Anyway it's beginning to look like the efforts required to beat Federer have reduced Nadal to a pale shadow, while Fed continues merrily piling up the titles.

Well he does lead 23/10; that's almost 70 percent of matches. In saying that, at peak I'd make him a deserved favourite.

Tim Smith55

walshb wrote: »

Yet in 33 matches from 2005 only indoors and grass Fed leads, and barely leads on grass. All other courts and matches he is inferior. This whole 'fast court' scenario is just speculation.

He barely leads on grass because they've only played three times on grass. If there were 6 or so grass court tournament's per year like clay the head to head would be much more in his favour if Nadal got far enough to play him.

Fast court isn't speculation, that's why he destroys Nadal at the WTF. He beat him 6-3 6-0 at the WTF in 2011 I believe.

mickmackey1

walshb wrote: »

Well he does lead 23/10; that's almost 70 percent of matches. In saying that, at peak I'd make him a deserved favourite.

No he leads 13-2 on clay, which skews everything. And Fed would be now rapidly closing the gap if Nadal stopped flunking out in the early rounds.

Tim Smith55

walshb wrote: »

Tactics and shot decision and selection.

You are fixated on stats. Win percentage dropping from one year to the next does not mean you were a better tennis player in the higher percent year. It simply means your percentage was higher. And your success was higher.

Winning percentage correlates very well with performance. Most people can recognise that 2008 and 2013 were years were Federer performance dropped sharply.

The stats back this up. His winning percentage went down to 81% in 2008 and went down to 73% in 2013. His performance ( as people see with their eyes) improved in 2014 and 2015 and his winning percentage also went up to 86% in both those years. in 2005 and 2006 he was regarded at his peak and the stats agree, 95% in both years. Post 2007 it Federer began losing to low ranked players, something he didn't do in his peak years.

walshb

mickmackey1 wrote: »

No he leads 13-2 on clay, which skews everything. And Fed would be now rapidly closing the gap if Nadal stopped flunking out in the early rounds.

And what's the excuse For the 9/6 hard court lead, or the win on the multi surface? This is just it. The excuses made for Roger are lame. Face it, Nadal has consistently had his number.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

This same conversation pops up in the imidiate aftermath of a Slam every single time. Is it the same people having the conversation?

Tim Smith55

walshb wrote: »

And what's the excuse For the 9/6 hard court lead, or the win on the multi surface? This is just it. The excuses made for Roger are lame. Face it, Nadal has consistently had his number.

A lot of Nadal's wins came post 2007. Early in 2008 he contracted mono, this took something out of him which sped up his decline. Soderling had to retire after getting mono.

walshb

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

This same conversation pops up in the imidiate aftermath of a Slam every single time. Is it the same people having the conversation?

Is it against charter rules? Seems cordial and mature to me.

mickmackey1

walshb wrote: »

And what's the excuse For the 9/6 hard court lead, or the win on the multi surface? This is just it. The excuses made for Roger are lame. Face it, Nadal has consistently had his number.

Borg was already past his peak when McEnroe was at his, despite there only being a 3 year gap between them. It's some tribute to Federer that he's had these great rivalries with two players half a tennis lifetime younger than him.

walshb

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Borg was already past his peak when McEnroe was at his, despite there only being a 3 year gap between them. It's some tribute to Federer that he's had these great rivalries with two players half a tennis lifetime younger than him.

This age thing you mention is pointless. Unless you want to claim that in 2005 that Roger was just not at his peak? Nadal beat him over a 9-10 year span. And some of them came when Nadal was not at his peak. Not sure why you keep bringing it up.

mickmackey1

walshb wrote: »

This age thing you mention is pointless. Unless you want to claim that in 2005 that Roger was just not at his peak? Nadal beat him over a 9-10 year span. And some of them came when Nadal was not at his peak. Not sure why you keep bringing it up.

If you think age is irrelevant so be it, maybe you think Sampras should make a comeback...

Anyway they haven't met in nearly two years & don't look like doing so until maybe a 1st round when Nadal is unseeded.

walshb

mickmackey1 wrote: »

If you think age is irrelevant so be it, maybe you think Sampras should make a comeback...

Anyway they haven't met in nearly two years & don't look like doing so until maybe a 1st round when Nadal is unseeded.

It is irrelevant, and I have clearly shown why. Not sure why you can't grasp it. Nadal has been beating Roger for 9/10 years. It's not some recent 'young man beating old man' thing.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

walshb wrote: »

Is it against charter rules? Seems cordial and mature to me.

No. I'm not telling anyone to stop, I'm just wondering if it's the same people having the same conversation every couple of months or if there's that big an influx of posters during a Slam to carry on the conversation every time.

cowboyBuilder

I can understand tho why this SABR is annoying to some, it just seems wrong... .. dunno, maybe cos it's never really been done before by the pros, its sneaky ... like serving underarm..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iUJ1nLnCI0

Tim Smith55

walshb wrote: »

It is irrelevant, and I have clearly shown why. Not sure why you can't grasp it. Nadal has been beating Roger for 9/10 years. It's not some recent 'young man beating old man' thing.

Likewise Federer has been beating Nadal for 9/10 years.

Davydenko leads Nadal in their head to head 6-5. This doesn't make Davydenko better than Nadal, he was just a bad match up, likewise with Rosol.

walshb

Tim Smith55 wrote: »

Likewise Federer has been beating Nadal for 9/10 years.

Davydenko leads Nadal in their head to head 6-5. This doesn't make Davydenko better than Nadal, he was just a bad match up, likewise with Rosol.

Yes, he has, at a rate of less than 1/2. I Still think that best vs. best Nadal is better than Roger if they meet.

No need to bring in Nadal's loss record against others. Fed is 2/4 against Kafelnikov, but peak to peak I'd make Roger a clear favourite.

Little different with Nadal and Roger. 33 matches at elite level over 10 years

Wicklow Brave

Would agree with everything walshb says about Fed v Nole v Nadal at their peaks. If 2010 Nadal met 2006 Fed at the US Open, I would have the house on Nadal, I just could not see any other outcome than a Nadal win. Three of the greatest athletes in any sport ever as far as I'm concerned though.

MisterAnarchy

walshb wrote: »

I believe Fed in 2011 beats 2006/2007 Fed. Better all rounder.

Are you really serious or on the wind up ?

Earlier Fed had a bigger and more reliable serve ,a bigger and more reliable forehand ,was faster and had more stamina.
He was a better player in almost every aspect bar the backhand.

He also didnt have back injuries or mononucleosis I may add.

2006/2007 Fed took his break points and offered up hardly any not like the latter version .

I can understand tho why this SABR is annoying to some, it just seems wrong... .. dunno, maybe cos it's never really been done before by the pros, its sneaky ... like serving underarm..

I think its absolutely great ,why would anyone think its annoying ?
Its an extremely difficult skill that should be praised .

lostcat

Missed the match due to zzzzzz, and can't really comment on it based on snippets.

But…

It is rather bizarre that, a few years ago, it was Djokovic who basically single handedly stopped Nadal getting to 18 grand slams and thus ‘ending the goat debate’ or whatever it was.

Now its Djokovic who has single handedly stopped Federer getting to 20+ slams, and stalling the same debate.

I can’t quite verbalise what this might mean it at the moment…..but, weird….

Note
It is forbidden to use this post in any way to further a point as to who is better than who in who’s peak and who climbed their peak before the other climbed theirs, and who climbed Everest and who actually only went up the reek… thank you

walshb

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Are you really serious or on the wind up ?

Earlier Fed had a bigger and more reliable serve ,a bigger and more reliable forehand ,was faster and had more stamina.
He was a better player in almost every aspect bar the backhand.

He also didnt have back injuries or mononucleosis I may add.
.

Earlier he wasn't meeting players like a peak Nole and Nadal. Fed's stamina was never an issue in 2011. He was not that type of player who grinded and grinded. In 2011 his movement and stamina were every bit as good. His serve, in 2009 SW19 was the best I have ever seen it. His overall game was better in 2011. Physically in 2011 I saw nothing to show me that he was not near the player he was in 2006/2007. If anything, Fed's speed on the court, and his retrieval/defence was better in 2011. I don't see how you can be so certain that he was a better tennis player or athlete in 2006/2007. The comp level needs to be factored in from each era.

Relating to the match ups. Not directed specifically to you:

Fed in 2006 and 2007 would have been a great match for 2011 Nole. I think 2011 Nole is just too strong for him.

2006/2007 Fed was losing to a pre peak Nadal in 6 of 11 matches. Yes, 5 were on clay and 1 on hard, still losing to him. I don't make excuses for Nadal losing to Federer because of a bloody surface. It's tennis. It's played on different surfaces.

In GS matches, which are the elite matches, Nadal has a clear lead of 9-2. In all finals he clearly leads. He leads on all surfaces, and on the mixed surface match. No matter what spin is put on it Nadal is tops.

Career wise Fed for me is number 1. He also is more a favourite for me. I rank him in my top ten greatest ever sports athletes. I do not have Nadal or Nole there, but being objective is what it should be about. In saying this the three of them are on their day all capable of beating the other at peak. No real clear leader. Nadal/Nole/Federer I rank them on peak to peak. Nadal wins most of their matches, then Nole, and then Federer.

Tim Smith55

walshb wrote: »

Earlier he wasn't meeting players like a peak Nole and Nadal. Fed's stamina was never an issue in 2011. He was not that type of player who grinded and grinded. In 2011 his movement and stamina were every bit as good. His serve, in 2009 SW19 was the best I have ever seen it. His overall game was better in 2011. Physically in 2011 I saw nothing to show me that he was not near the player he was in 2006/2007. If anything, Fed's speed on the court, and his retrieval/defence was better in 2011. I don't see how you can be so certain that he was a better tennis player or athlete in 2006/2007. The comp level needs to be factored in from each era.

Relating to the match ups. Not directed specifically to you:

Fed in 2006 and 2007 would have been a great match for 2011 Nole. I think 2011 Nole is just too strong for him.

2006/2007 Fed was losing to a pre peak Nadal in 6 of 11 matches. Yes, 5 were on clay and 1 on hard, still losing to him. I don't make excuses for Nadal losing to Federer because of a bloody surface. It's tennis. It's played on different surfaces.

In GS matches, which are the elite matches, Nadal has a clear lead of 9-2. In all finals he clearly leads. He leads on all surfaces, and on the mixed surface match. No matter what spin is put on it Nadal is tops.

Career wise Fed for me is number 1. He also is more a favourite for me. I rank him in my top ten greatest ever sports athletes. I do not have Nadal or Nole there, but being objective is what it should be about. In saying this the three of them are on their day all capable of beating the other at peak. No real clear leader. Nadal/Nole/Federer I rank them on peak to peak. Nadal wins most of their matches, then Nole, and then Federer.

Djokovic has never held a winning head to head record against Federer. If the field was so weak in 2006 and 2007 why did Nadal fail to get past the quarter final of the Australian Open or US Open in both of those years?

MisterAnarchy

walshb wrote: »

Earlier he wasn't meeting players like a peak Nole and Nadal. Fed's stamina was never an issue in 2011. He was not that type of player who grinded and grinded. In 2011 his movement and stamina were every bit as good. His serve, in 2009 SW19 was the best I have ever seen it. His overall game was better in 2011. Physically in 2011 I saw nothing to show me that he was not near the player he was in 2006/2007. If anything, Fed's speed on the court, and his retrieval/defence was better in 2011.

Look ,he was 30 in 2011 ,that is old for a tennis player.
How can you say his movement and stamina were as good as when he was 25 ,that's just not true.

Do you know how many grand slams have been won by over 30 year olds in the last 40 years ? 8

Seriously watch Federer in 2004-2006. The movement is something else. Efficient and effective. Now we get a glimpse of that for maybe 1 set.

Tennis has changed ,its a far more physical game now than it was ten years ago.
Have workhorses like Djokovic, Nadal and Murray taken advantage of slower conditions? Yes.
Are they more suited to these conditions than Federer? Yes.
Has Federer tried to adapt to these conditions? Yes.

Is Federer a better player now than he was in 2003-2007? No.

Physical prime is needed for these conditions.

Its a testament to how good Federer is that at 34 he took Djokovic in his prime to 4 sets on a very slow hard court,played the better tennis ,and if he took his break points would have won.

walshb

Tim Smith55 wrote: »

Djokovic has never held a winning head to head record against Federer. If the field was so weak in 2006 and 2007 why did Nadal fail to get past the quarter final of the Australian Open or US Open in both of those years?

Nole had no lead on head to head until today. That's irrelevant. I am pitting them at peak. Nole peaked in 2011. Look at the head to heads from then. Nole clearly leads. It is 16-8. Now, you will claim that 2011-2015 is past Roger's peak. Fair enough, but conversely, I can claim that pre 2011 was not Nole's peak. And they had 6-7 matches in 2006/2007 when Nole was not at his peak, but Federer (according to you) was. Hence it's a moot point on both our sides.

The 2006/2007 era was not so weak. Remember, this debate I began is man against man. Not era against era. In 2006/2007 I think it's fair to say that Nadal and Nole were still a little off their peaks. Federer was at his peak according to you and some others. I personally believe that his best ever tennis was 2009 and 2011. That is when I saw him at his best. Not talking about win percentage or titles, just how he played and looked on court. Even today and recently he looks to be excellent. Anyway, even if I agreed that his peak was 2006/2007 I still don't think he beats the best versions of Nadal (2008/2010/2013) or Nole (2011 to now)

I am talking about the best versions of all the greats. In my view the best versions of Nadal and Nole top the list in a round Robin type tournament. Federer ranks third, Sampras ranks 4th. After this I would have to think a bit more.

Ok, take your example of the best Federer and pit him against your example of the best Nadal. 3 matches on hard/clay and grass, and three matches on indoor hard. What result do you envisage? I believe that Fed wins maybe 2 grass, 1 hard, 0 clay, and 2 hard indoor. That's 5 matches I give him. I think Nadal wins 7. I can't really be confident that Federer wins more than Nadal. I have seen many of their 33 matches, and as it stands Nadal has won almost 70 percent of the matches. 9/15 on hard as well. And, in 2006/2007 Federer (who you say was peak) still wasn't on top against a yet to peak Nadal.

Gun to my head on Nadal at peak vs. Nole at peak over 12 matches. 3 grass/3 clay/3 hard and 3 hard indoor. It's Nadal 2-1 clay; 1-2 grass; 2-1 hard; 1-2 indoor hard. I have it a tie. If forced to make a pick I'd slightly lean with Nadal.

Federer peak vs. Nole peak: 3 grass/3 hard/3 clay/3 hard indoor: Federer is 2-1 grass; 1-2 clay, 1-2 hard, 1-2 hard indoor. Wins 5 and loses 7.

lostcat

lads

these guys have saved everyone the trouble and worked it out for us

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/djokovic-and-federer-are-vying-to-be-the-greatest-of-all-time/?ex_cid=538twitter

executive summary:
Fed is the best overall, but Djokovic and Borg peak higher, albeit for shorter periods.

there it is so.

walshb

Mac and Borg in their prime years would be lucky to win a game against prime Fed/Nadal/Nole....

Similar to matching a prime Tyson against a prime Patterson!

yerwanthere123

So, what were your favourite matches of the tournament? Serena-Vinci and Azarenka-Kerber were the highlights for me. The men's final was a lot of fun too, even if it did get one-sided towards the end.

All in all a really good US Open, a vast improvement on both 2013 & 2014.

cowboyBuilder

>>>>SNIP<<<<

If this is what the conversation has been reduced to this thread will be closed.

walshb

lostcat wrote: »

executive summary:
Fed is the best overall, but Djokovic and Borg peak higher, albeit for shorter periods.

.

Pretty much what I have been saying. Career wise Roger is GOAT. Peak Nole vs. Peak Federer over 5 sets on a "neutral" surface, if that is possible, I will slightly lean with Nole. I would lean more with Nadal.

Had Nadal not existed Federer could be close to 27 anyway. Federer may well go down as the 2nd best Clay court player ever.

lostcat

walshb wrote: »

Had Nadal not existed Federer could be close to 27 anyway. Federer may well go down as the 2nd best Clay court player ever.

I think Djokovic might hit that nail on the head, if he wins a French. He has after all beaten Nadal many times on clay....

cowboyBuilder

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

>>>>SNIP<<<<

If this is what the conversation has been reduced to this thread will be closed.

Sorry, I wanted to post this in another thread ...